Pages

Monday, January 7, 2013

Ron Smith: Radiation, Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power

The
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
reported to the General Assembly in December 2012. The content of this report will provide the
basis for advice on national radiation safety policies, and, as such, it could
be extremely significant in the future development of nuclear power around the
world.

The
UN expert report began with some detailed assessments of the health
consequences of the March 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima.For readers of earlier commentaries on this
site, the committee’s conclusions will come as no surprise.On the other hand, for those who depend on
the main-stream media it might produce shock and utter perplexity.This morning, as I write this first blog of
the New Year, Radio New Zealand is repeating a 45 minute interview with Richard
Broinowski (of Sydney University) , which, broadly, repeats the ‘We all die’
narrative that I commented on in a column in June of last year.There were no searching questions asked and
Radio New Zealand hasn’t thought it important enough to carry anything about
the UNSCEAR findings.That is a pity,
since they are significantly at variance with the Broinowski account.

UNSCEAR
is clear: “No radiation health effects have been observed in Japan among the
public, workers or children in the area of the Fukushima nuclear power
plant.This is in line with studies
already published by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University that
showed that people near the damaged power plant received such low doses of
radiation that no discernible health effect could be expected.”The report then goes on to discuss the range
of radiation exposures which might give rise to harm (and in what
circumstances), and the difficulties of establishing a cause-effect
relationship at exposures that lie within the range of natural variation around
the globe. It also notes that 170 workers at the plant received doses of over
100 mSv, during their time tackling the emergency, and six workers received 250
mSv, with ‘no ill effects’ in any case.This is to be compared with global average
background levels in the range 2-20 mSv.It can also be compared with the dose above which adverse effects have
been unequivocally observed: this is 1000 mSv.

There
is an exception to all this and it is concerns the particular vulnerability of
children to radioactive Iodine-131.This
isotope is produced in nuclear reactors and was present around the Fukushima
plant after the accident.If ingested it
is particularly taken up by the thyroid gland and can cause thyroid
cancer.There is a simple preventative
measure and this is to swamp the system with the non-radioactive isotope of
iodine (through iodine pills) which limits any take-up of the radioactive
form.This was done promptly in Japan but
it wasn’t done in the Ukraine following Chernobyl, as a result of which child
thyroid cancer ‘was the only major radiation-related health effect of the
Chernobyl accident’ (UNSCEAR report).

There
are a number of significant implications of all this for the future of civilian
nuclear power.The most obvious of these
is that, notwithstanding the monumental outbreak of nuclear phobia that swept
the world following the accident in northern Japan, nuclear power is very safe.It is also very reliable (contrast wind,
solar and hydroelectric), as well as economic, especially for countries (like
Japan) that are, in significant ways, resource-poor, and need to import most of
their energy needs.Japan also has
enormous investments in its civilian nuclear-power infrastructure.It is hardly surprising that the new
government (elected December 16) has reversed the policy of its predecessor,
which was to phase out nuclear power.Indeed, it is talking of ‘new build’.

The
Japanese authorities are presently around 30% of the way through a massive
clean-up of the contaminated areas around the Fukushima plant, including the
capital of the prefecture, Fukushima City.The radiation levels range from hotspots, showing a radiation level of
above 20mSv per year to an average for the City, itself, of 5-10mSv.The anticipated cost is 31 billion Yen ($500
million).It may be asked whether this
is money well spent.To be sure, present
ambient levels of radiation are as much as ten times higher than they would
have been in that region without the accident.On the other hand, they are within the range of natural radiation and
two orders of magnitude below
exposures that have been shown to cause harm.

But,
it might be said, there is a risk, however small, of an adverse health event
(cancer, perhaps) sometime down the track.The question now becomes: Can the magnitude of that risk be established
(UNSCEAR thinks that it can’t be at the exposures being considered), and who
will pay?The second question is important
because I suspect that, if you asked the average citizen of Fukushima
prefecture whether it would be worth spending some 100,000 yen (and losing the
use of his house for up to six years) in order to avoid a possible loss of
life-expectancy of (say) a few weeks, he might not take the deal, figuring that
there are a lot of other factors (including life-style factors) which bear on
this question.Of course this is highly
speculative but there are professional risk assessors who can do this kind of
calculation.It may be that if it
wouldn’t be worth it to the individuals concerned to engage in this expenditure,
on cost/benefit grounds (he wouldn’t buy the ‘insurance’), perhaps it isn’t
worth it for the government or a nuclear company either.

Of
course, the UNSCEAR experts did not go as far as this but there is little doubt
that a crucial factor in the cost of nuclear power, generally, is the
imposition of (or companies’ acquiescence in) precautionary expenditures, which
are not well justified in terms of contemporary understandings of the
risk.It is nettle which needs to be
grasped if we are to make the best use of what is a very valuable energy
resource.

4 comments:

Dave Hill
said...

The Nuclear debate or opposition in NZ like the no US navy ship visits stems more from the left'S opposition to anything associated with the USA, plus an appalling ignorance by the general population who have been fed a diet of no fact based hysteria for years that we would all be wiped out by having a nuclear powered ship in our waters. This ignorance was embellished further by our 'red' PMs Lange and Clarke. You are right Nuclear power is the safest and most economical form of energy, sadly we will never see nuclear power plants in NZ.

Actually those figures are terribly wrong. USS Reagan sailors required bone marrow transplants after exposure to Fukushima fallout, and are presently suing TEPCO.Many people have died from radiation exposure from Fukushima in Japan. It just isn't in the media - because the media is being muzzled.UNSCEAR cannot make statements about the ICRP recommendation effects without a Special Committee oversight from the WHO.The WHO is not allowed to make any statement on any radiation matter without the express permission of the IAEA. Go check for yourself!

New Zealand milk powder, tested by the Japanese government, is ABOVE EPA safety limits for Caesium 134/137 content per kg of milk fat.Where did that come from again?

The point too often missed about Fukushims was that it was an earthquake of magnitude 9 which caused the destruction of everything in its path including the nuclear plant which was an 'innocent' victim. If it had been built where there was no risk from a tsunami caused by such an earthquake, there would have been no problem and so no irrational anti-nuclear outcry.

Nuclear power in NZ is unlikely because it requires an economy of scale which we do not have. That is no reason to exclude nuclear power ships, though the American 'refuse to affirm or deny' policy is just bloody-minded. Then last year they refused our warship access to Pearl Harbor but admitted a Japanese ship. That was a low trick on NZ.

Helen Caldicott has a lot to say on Fukushima as does Dr Chris Busby and also Arnie Gunderson; these three people are experts in their fields and they are at the opposite end of the discussion from Ron Smith and UNSCEAR and the WHO. Helen Caldicott believes that Fukushima is far worse than Chernobyl and the sailors on the USS Reagan who are suing Tepco for their exposure to radiation when the ship was sent into the area immediately following the earthquakes and tsunami in March 2011.Checkout rense.com there is a huge section on Fukushima, many hours of reading for those who wish to find out what the consequenses of the disaster are.

Subscribe To

Welcome to Breaking Views

Breaking Views brings you expert commentary on topical political and policy issues. The views expressed are those of the author alone. The blog is administered by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, an independent public policy think tank at NZCPR.com - register for the free weekly NZCPR newsletterHERE.